Episode 6: How the Attention Economy Drives Polarization

In this second installment of our two-part series with Brian Katulis and Danielle Pletka, the conversation shifts from the craft of foreign-policy storytelling to the pressures that warp it. They discuss how algorithms reward confrontation, how outside actors manipulate division, and how the simple fear of standing apart from one’s peers can reshape what experts are willing to say. Katulis and Pletka illuminate not just what drives polarization, but what can soften it: curiosity, humility, and the willingness to stay in the room when disagreements arise. This episode offers a thoughtful look at how we might rebuild spaces for debate, that informs rather than divides and how stronger public narratives can help restore a healthier democratic culture.

Host: Matthew Levinger – Host of the America’s Why Podcast and Professor of Practice of International Affairs at the George Washington University.

Guests

• Danielle Pletka – Distinguished Senior Fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
• Brian Katulis – Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Explore Taking the Edge Off the Middle East, the Middle East Institute podcast hosted by MEI Senior Fellow Brian Katulis: https://mei.edu/taking-the-edge-off/

Visit our website to learn more about the America’s Why Project and join the conversation: americaswhyproject.com

Listen on: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Amazon Music

The views expressed in the podcast are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent those held by the America's Why Project team or the George Washington University. 

Transcript

How the Attention Economy Drives Polarization

Interview with Brian Katulis and Danielle Pletka, Part 2

[Recorded February 5, 2026; for release on March xx, 2026]

Amy McCampbell: Welcome to the America’s Why podcast.

[Music]

Matt Levinger: Hello, I’m your host – Matt Levinger.

Matt: We're back today with Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, and Danielle Pletka, who is a distinguished senior fellow in Foreign Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, to continue our fascinating conversation about storytelling in American foreign policy. Last week, we got into a very lively conversation that modeled what Dany talked about as the principle of “agreeing to disagree agreeably.” And today we are going to be continuing in that spirit, in hopes that we can shed light in an area where heat is predominant. 

And so there are a couple of topics that I want to get at in today's episode. We want to be talking about two forces in contemporary politics that discourage bridge building across party lines. Number one, in our modern attention economy, social media algorithms drive audiences toward the most sensationalist and confrontational views. And number two, the fear of ostracism. We know that humans, as a social species – or what one of our speakers calls a semi-social species, that we're very good at bonding together, provided that we're against some other group – depend for their survival on being a member of a group in good standing. And so it can be both psychologically and physically perilous to stray too far from your group consensus. 

And so these are two forces that I see as driving the polarization of our politics. But by polarization, we aren't necessarily referring to the fact of disagreement per se. It's the manner of disagreement that is destructive. And so I want to start just by opening up for a concise conversation, a question that we started to talk about at some length in last week's episode. Dany and Brian, how are your own stories about America's role in the world similar? And how are they different from one another?

Brian: You first, Dany.

Dany: Oh. Thanks, Brian. Dude. Look, I think especially on foreign policy, that we believe in the same things. We're not always one hundred percent about how to get there. We're not always one hundred percent about the strategies of our leaders. We're not always one hundred percent about the risks and the rewards. But do we believe in small “d” democracy? Do we believe in in civil rights? Do we believe in women's rights? Do we believe in the rights of minorities? Do we believe in freedom? Absolutely. 

And those things at base animate not just Brian and me. And forgive me, Brian, if I'm speaking for you and you actually have decided that you love tyranny in the few months we haven't seen each other, along with that goatee you have. Um, but at base, those are the important things. And, I don't think it's just we who agree about those things as better. I think that when you take those things to most people, they agree that, “You know what? Um, no. Actually, my values and the values of the United States are better than the values of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, better than the values of the Taliban, better than the values of XI Jinping or Vladimir Putin.” You know, these are things that animate us. And you know what? Um, tactics, Strategy. Those things matter a lot. But those core issues are, to me, the most important, and they're what enable people like Brian, who's at the Middle East Institute but was at the center for American Progress, which is a far more left-wing organization than the American Enterprise Institute. That's what enables us to work together because we share those things. Aha! How was that, Brian?

Brian: We'll keep it short. What she said. I agree with that, I think. Very briefly, I think where we'll disagree and throughout our various projects you would often – Dany would joke with me, “Brian, you're you're a neocon. You know, you're just…” And in terms of the values, yes, in terms of the role of government, uh, versus the free market of the economy. And again, I think we're off the spectrum right now in this first year of Trump in terms of the government's interference in private enterprise and, also the kleptocracy at very senior levels happening. So we're off the charts there. Now I think there's going to be a backlash against that. 

But I think in the role of the government at its core, Dany still is very much a conservative. And here I'm talking mostly domestically, but internationally, I think we agree that tariffs are a bad idea and a tax on consumers and will disadvantage America in its competition with China. So there's a lot more consensus there. What puzzles me is that essentially, Matt, she and I are – I view it as voices in the wilderness, me further in the wilderness.

And we're going to talk about that. What Dany often writes and speaks about is, you know, sometimes overlaps with what is the dominant narrative, as I see it in the last year, but it's not really driving it. Right? It's sort of, it's offering sort of a view. Whereas me, you know, I'm sort of way off the spectrum right now and probably more isolated in my own tribe, definitely than she is.

Matt: Okay, so great on the principles we all stand for – freedom and so forth. But let's get down to brass tacks here. We're recording this on February 5th, which would have been my father's 99th birthday. And this episode will play probably sometime in March. Right now, the U.S. is amassing a large military force near Iran. And this is a topic that came up in our last conversation. Do you do you agree or disagree on U.S. policy toward Iran?

Dany: I'm assuming you're asking me since Brian just spoke. Um, Matt, I'm not sure what U.S. policy is, and I know how the president feels because I have friends who speak to the president very frequently. But I also think that that changes day to day to day. I think for way too long we have been without a serious policy on Iran. So, you know, when you say, do we agree on policy toward Iran, I'd like to see this regime fall. I'd like to see them go away. If that's what the policy is, then yay. 

If the policy is merely to kick back the nuclear program for another six months or eight months until the Iranians break out again and continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas and all of the other groups, then I'm really not down with that. I wasn't down with it when Joe Biden pursued it. I wasn't down with it when Barack Obama pursued it. And I'm certainly not down with it if Donald Trump pursues it. So I mean – but I think it's a very fluid time. And that may look like a very silly statement in March, given that it's February 5th. Happy birthday to your dad – 1927, quite a year.

Matt: Yes.

Brian: I share Dany's question about what policy on Iran is. I put out a quarterly report and that evaluates every administration since I've been at the Middle East Institute and gives them grades on different files. In February, we put out this, I put out the report on Trump's full year in the Middle East, and I gave him a “D” on Iran. But the grades go up and down from quarter to quarter. I gave him some good grades, you know, earlier in the year. 

And right now, Matt, you're asking a question, as Dany indicated, at a pivotal moment. If this is coming out in a month, a lot can happen between now and then. The thing I'd say pertinent to this conversation is that I think for the last fifteen years, Americans, including thought leaders and think tanks and politicians, have basically allowed the divisions in our own society to be exploited by the Islamic Republic's regime. And they've exploited it, I think, to their own advantage. 

My hope is that Trump does stand by his earlier statements in January to support the Iranian people. I'm not sure that he'll do that, in part because of that zigzagging we talked about in the last episode that, yes, Americans follow what their leaders say. But if your leader says one thing on a Monday and then on a Thursday says 180 degree opposite, I'm not certain that that will be something that sustains itself, especially when you look at the gargantuan task of transformation in Iran, which the people of Iran want. 

Last thing I'd say is, you know, my recent podcasts had two great guests, but one in particular, Emad Shargi, who was held for five years, detained unlawfully by the regime and tortured – and to hear his story, but then to hear his perspective on what this regime is and how it's essentially a foreign occupation. It's something that is alien to the vast majority of Iranians. That's something that liberals, conservatives, everybody should keep in mind no matter what Trump does, if he strikes a deal or if he does what I suspect he might do, which is like what he did to the Houthis last year, which was just a short-term campaign. But it didn't really change things. But we don't, you know, he's assembled vast[ly] more firepower in the region. We just don't know what he'll actually do. Will he try to secure a quick deal that he'll brag about, that he has peace in that? Or will he stand by the people of Iran? We just don't know.

Matt: So can the U.S. play a transformative role in Iran without a full scale Iraq-style invasion?

Brian: I think so, but we've unilaterally disarmed ourselves in the first year of the Trump administration of many of the tools – some of those tools needed to be discarded. But when things like free information, and I know they're trying to build back VOA Persia, not that that was the lodestar, but a lot of these tools that helped us win the Cold War, that had bipartisan support. We just sort of threw the baby out with the bathwater. 

And we don't need a large ground force like people knee-jerk, especially on the left, say, oh, you want to do another Iraq war again? And I think that sort of misses the point of the opportunity to actually say, hey, look, not just the Middle East, but the broader world will be much safer as a result of change in leadership in Iran that reflects the will of the people. But you don't need to invade and occupy to make that happen.

Dany: Couldn't agree more. And I mean, you know, again, there's a lot of baby bath water issues. I remember. You know, I remember when Barack Obama was elected and he ended all of our pro-democracy programs because, you know, “Iraq, Iraq” – and it was a really, really bad idea – that they need improvement. You know, America has become bad at reform in ways that we don't very often talk about. And it's troubling because what Brian says is absolutely right. The Voice of America. You know, I'm not super impressed with how they've been since the end of the Cold War, but these are critical tools. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty I am super impressed with the job that they do. There's a reason why the Chinese hate them. There's a reason why the Russians hate them. And, you know, can we be better? We should always be striving to be better. 

And one of the things that the private sector, you know, you can hate Apple and hate, you know, all of these other organizations, but they've got updates every two weeks, every three weeks. In government, you're lucky if you get an update every twenty, thirty years. And we ought to be doing that more often. And you know, sometimes it takes a Trump, sometimes it takes a Biden. But that is something. And frankly, and this is something where Brian and I don't have a shared experience. 

But I worked on Capitol Hill for a decade. That's all we did. And Congress has given up the business of oversight and the business of government reform. And that is a totally bipartisan slam on our on our legislative branch. But it used to be that members of Congress would go after the executive branch, both sides of the aisle, because we needed to be better. Now it's just gotcha. And garbage investigations and, you know, Clickbait smut. And you know, don't get me wrong, I read The Daily Mail every day, but, you know, this is what the business of democratic government should be. So, you know, I think there's a lot of space for, for us to do better. And, I agree entirely. We don't need to occupy Iran to make it a better place. We just need to work with the people of Iran to help them govern in a way that is successful and is true to the people.

Matt: Well, let's talk about gotcha and clickbait, which is one of the themes of today's episodes. Social media algorithms drive audiences toward the most sensationalist and confrontational views, exploiting vulnerabilities of human psychology, which highlight the importance of fear. Because, as David Rock said in in our first episode on this podcast series, “If you miss out on a reward, you might miss out on lunch. If you miss out on a threat, you might be lunch.” 

So how does this tendency to drive people toward sensationalist and confrontational views affect your ability as Middle East experts to get your voices heard?

Brian: Look – part of it – and I saw this degradation happen in the middle of the 2010s. People who actually aren't true Middle East experts or speak the language or lived over there became, at least in my circles, on the left, just because they were loud and provocative and saying things, say, about Israel or Palestine or Iran. They got more attention and more followers, and they were able to shape discourse in ways that a more thoughtful op-ed or policy paper, right – people don't read these things anymore. So I think it's had a coarsening effect and has produced this environment, at least on the Middle East. 

I've written about called neo-orientalism. Not that I was a big fan of Edward Said, but the projection of our own social and political and ideological debates on infinitely complex challenges inside of Israel or with Palestinians or Iran, just the instrumentalizing sort of the struggles and the challenges that people feel on and face on the other side of the planet in our own debates in sort of weird, twisted funhouse mirror ways that I think has been the product of social media. 

Matthew, I'll just correct you one thing. I don't think it's all sensationalist and fearmongering on social media that gets the biggest hits. I, for one, had my biggest hit on X just two weeks ago. I had a two second video of my dog walking in the snow, and it was – hands down – it was cute, admittedly, but people look to escape. People look to vent, I think in these forums. I don't think they look to listen too much. Um, if they're listening, it's with confirmatory bias. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's forums like this. It's more like why I want to go out more and I am going out – where am I going – to Iowa in in a week or two. Uh, just to talk to people. Right. And the human contact, whether it's through something like this or more importantly, in person, I think produces better discourse than social media. That makes me sort of a dinosaur and kind of a loser, right? Like, my stuff is cold product because I'm not really on it that much. And I'm not getting into fights with folks because, like, life's too short, you know?

Matt: Dany.

Dany:, I totally agree about the degradation of the medium. So, I mean, you know, look, on the one hand, democratization is nice. I'm bored by Tom Friedman and David Ignatius, let me just say, who remain columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post. Um, I don't think either of them have said anything new in, I don't know, twenty, thirty, forty years notwithstanding the changing age of the taxi drivers and CIA agents that they talk to. 

So, you know, on the one hand, you're totally right, Brian. I mean, you know, God, the doofuses out there who pretend to knowing something. You know, Ben Rhodes, God help us. Jared Kushner, real estate guy, although, you know, he's done – he has some claim to fame. But, so, I understand the transformation, but I come back to what I said before, which is, wow, wouldn't it have been nice to reform and have some fresh voices that weren't Tom Friedman and David Ignatius – but weren't, you know, Ben Rhodes? 

You know, at a certain age, you you just sound like an old person, you know, who's trying to scream at the kids to get off your lawn and pulling out your shotgun. And I don't want to sound like that. I want to – let me instead take another 15 or 20 seconds and exploit the question to answer something different, which is, uh, yes, you're right. Clickbait drives BS narratives. Stupid people who shouldn't be in the position of expert analysis are in that position. But don't forget how much of this is paid for by bad guys, right? 

And in Brian's and my space, let me just say, without naming them, because I don't want to get people in trouble. Um, there are a lot of bad guys in the Middle East who spend a lot of money buying a lot of people in Washington and buying their narrative, which they then propagate. And that is something where I at least wish that we had more sunlight. I wish I knew who was getting that money because it would enable me to make a better judgment. At least in the old days, I could assume that probably it was really only Tom Friedman being paid by the New York Times and a bunch of, you know, potentates. Now it's everybody who's in on the game paying everybody to further a narrative, so it's much more confusing. Anyway, that was like sixteen questions I answered in there – 

Brian: Yeah, I would say I completely agree with that. What I found, though, through especially in the Middle East, is that if you engage in it every day and you listen carefully and watch carefully and you know the people you don't, you need that transparency. I'm supportive of that. But even at that, you already know who's actually offering an authentic view and who's carrying the water for some sort of foreign interest. 

And what I think is dangerous these days is that open societies like ours are particularly vulnerable to the narratives pushed not just by China, Russia, Iran, but Gulf states, by different factions inside of Israel. Like, again, I'm not doing the thing that people do on the far left. It's just politics bleed into each other. But when it comes from autocratic societies that don't have freedom and they're exploiting the divisions, you can kind of feel it is my main point. Uh, you can almost sniff it out.

Dany: We feel it, Brian. But I don't know that everybody does.

Brian: Oh, no for sure. Yeah yeah yeah, yeah. And it's impolite to call it out or things like this to folks. I would rather have a debate on the level. Right. But that debate often, especially these days, is not on the level when China or others are really trying to lean in on it in their own ways. And what worries me is that, you see, at least I see echoes of this coming from various administrations, including the current one, but then previous Democratic administrations as well.

Dany: Amen.

Matt: The other phenomenon that I alluded to as a factor in driving polarization is fear of ostracism. If you're a Democrat who tilts too close to the Republicans or vice versa, you risk being cast out of your tribe. Have either of you experienced this kind of pressure from your peers, and if so, how do you respond?

Dany: Yeah. Brian. You go.

Brian: That's the story of my career, like at least the last ten years, and I'm proud of it. And I mentioned some of the things on your previous episode that I wrote during the Obama and Biden years. You could just look it up and some people didn't like it. I would literally get missives from senior officials – I'm like, “Wow, you're reading, you have time to read me?” – of, “We don't know if you're on the same team here. Like if you're with us.” And then at a time when, I mean, we could tell you stories, Matt – I don't want to go on here because I did in the earlier episode.

Dany and I could tell you stories of when, you know, a particular think tank was experiencing a physical threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran. We worked together to actually try to do a letter, and that was harder than you might imagine, just because of the politics in which tribe you're in. So for sure, I'm like, I know I'm sort of been black sheeped by folks because, you know, at one point I was in favor of the Iran nuclear deal, and I was and Dany was against it. But I was also critical of the absence of a broader strategy to deal with the loose ends, but also deal with their malign activity and support for terrorism. And it's like, oh, you stop getting invited to those Roosevelt Room briefings with senior Obama officials because you know, you know it when you see it, right? 

And maybe it bothered me when I was a younger Brian. Now I just sort of don't care. And I think the risk that I have is because I'm not aspiring to advise, like the next presidential candidate and things like this. I just want there to be good ideas and good conversations. I'm going to be seen as cold product and that's okay. And maybe that that's it, and I've had a good run for 25 years or so. But I you know, yeah, you do definitely get ostracized. I don't know if Dany experiences this or I do sense that some people pull their punches, uh, when their particular candidate gets into power. I saw this under Obama a bit, and shape things in a different way and say things, or maybe don't say things for fear of losing access. I think that happens quite a lot.

Matt: Dany.

Dany: I don't care at all. So I don't care at all. I saw this, I – Brian is completely right. I saw this happen to him. I've seen it happen to plenty of people on the right as well. And not just in, you know, sort of vicious, “you're with me or against me” administrations like the Trump administration – but, you know, in, in plenty of much more traditional Republican and Democratic administrations. You know, look, politics is a partisan game, and it's kind of gross, but that's the way it goes. I just, you know, I don't I just don't care. You have to make that decision at a certain moment. And some people make it earlier, some people make it later. Brian made it as a pretty young guy. I made it as a pretty young guy as well.

Brian: You’re a guy?

Dany: I am a guy. 

Brian: Wow. Okay.

Dany: Just, without a goatee. Hey, you guys, I'm a guy, too. Just not in that way. Um, you know, I'm a guy. A bunch of kids. Um, anyway. But, you know, you can't – you can't care. 

The only little asterisk I will put there is that some people aren't driven by fear of losing their access. Some people are driven by the role that they play, the persuasive role that they play in government. And that's really important. Sometimes, you know, having the ears of the president of the United States is not a small thing. You know, you may not like Trump. You may not like Biden, you may not like any of them. But Washington's a company town, and that's a hard one. You want to have a little bit of reserves of sympathy for people who pull their punches because –not because they love the access, although maybe they do – but because they're helping make the world a better place because they have some influence. And I see that. I saw that, I saw that. I've seen it my entire career. Um, you know, I try not to – well, there are people I judge – and I, as Brian knows, I can't say I try not to judge people because that would be totally not credible. 

But, look, you know what? You need to be true to yourself at the end of the day. You need to be true to yourself. You need to be true to your principles. You’ve only got one life to live. And, one tiny anecdote for your listeners that my husband and I often share. We both worked in government for a long time. I still remember when the former Speaker of the House – and he hadn’t not been Speaker of the House for very long – was sitting outside waiting to speak to me in my office. You know, one of the things about democracy is power is very transient. And so you can't let this bother you. You got to be true to yourself because you're going to be that guy sitting outside in somebody's office waiting for the attentions of menial staff or Danielle Pletka at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one day. Best not to be a schmuck.

Brian: Yeah. Matthew, if I could say one thing in addition to this, I think there's a tension between having that access to power and then being able to really have a sense of truth or what the correct analysis is. And one example I'd cite is when Obama, if you remember, in 2010, I think, did a surge in Afghanistan and they would do briefings for analysts, you know, bring them in. And I remember one of the senior Obama officials saying, “You know, this is a really convoluted thing that we're putting out here. We're going to need your help in getting it, getting the message out.” And I never really did that, right. Like, I always, like, took those briefings for what they were worth and then heavily discount. And it's the difference between, what Intel people say to someone trying to influence you rather than inform you, and really teasing that out. 

Because if I see my job as just trying to be a clinical analyst and I am on a spectrum, you know, I am on a spectrum in many ways, more ways than one. But I'm on a political spectrum. But you understand what I'm saying is, the closer you get to those centers of power, whether it's a Middle East potentate or a president in the United States or a senator, they're going to want you to actually try to say things that are in their favor. And you always have to be very careful to stay true to what you think is good. And my sort of North Star has been what's good for U.S. national security interests and values. And it's again in my own frame. But you always have to be careful about people using your voice in a particular way.

Matt: Thanks very much. I really appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt responses to that question, which I know has been an important one in for you in both of your careers. It’s now 7:30 a.m. in Washington, DC, where Brian and I are located, and it's 11:30 p.m. in Melbourne. And so we've promised to let Dany get to bed before too long. So let me wrap up this fascinating conversation with a couple of question:

What makes political narratives fail or succeed? And how can better storytelling help rebuild a vital center in American public life?

Brian: Well, if we're talking in the realm of foreign policy, I think the one thing that makes it succeed is leaders or thought leaders, but also political leaders who can draw the connection between what's going on in the world to the daily existence and lives of ordinary folks. It's as simple as that. And it can't be an academic scholarly seminar, which is what a lot of the left do. I also don't think it can be a fear mongering, hate othering, you know, that I think dominates some of the part of the right these days, but I don't think is the core of it, because that does resonate. 

So I think the key ingredient that's often missing is drawing that linkage, which is kind of obvious. But the problem – we foreign policy people, and I've done this on your first episode in particular – is we get into the weeds and talk too much. We need leaders who actually – we need leaders who can actually bring it up to a higher level and connect with folks. And I think that's the key ingredient when it comes to foreign policy political narrative is that plus answering the question of why – why it relates to people's individual lives, but why is it important for the nation?

Matt: Dany.

Dany: It's a really hard question. I think the best way to answer it is so, you know, it used to be that the State of the Union was, first of all, it was, under George Washington, it was a just a document that was delivered to Congress. But then eventually it became, you know, the president coming up to Capitol Hill and addressing the joint session of Congress. And then I think under Ronald Reagan, it became sort of a show and tell where, you know, you invited Bob, who suffered from X, which is an issue that I want to raise and talk about what a great guy Bob is. And all of you see him. He's a real human being. And, you know, and there were wonderful people who were brought up by both Republican and Democratic presidents. But it was always this effort to humanize a challenge that we face. One of the problems with national security is it's not like, you know, so and so was killed by an illegal immigrant, or so and so was taken off the welfare rolls because of, you know, because of evil, rapacious policies. 

But foreign policy is much harder to, to, to generate empathy for. And it's a rare leader who is able to do that and to and to give, you know, to humanize foreign policy to Americans in a way that is not directly impactful to their lives. And this is one of the reasons why, for example, we have yet to see a really successful effort on the part of any president to humanize the suffering of 1.4 billion Chinese under the Chinese Communist Party. Right. I mean, no one has brought up human rights in forever in China. When we talk about it, we talk about tariffs, we talk about trade, we talk about intellectual property. And of course, you know that that's not terribly compelling. 

At the end of the day, you know, I think that it's really important to make a case for the individual freedoms that we enjoy in America. And you can't ask Americans to sacrifice all in order to deliver those individual freedoms to other people, but it is something they understand. That's why when George W. Bush talked about his freedom agenda and he talked about the desire of people to live better lives, to deliver better lives for their children, to promise their children that their lives would be better than the ones that they have, that was a very empathetic, very compelling story until it became something that presidents didn't want to do. But I think that's the most human way to discuss foreign policy. But it's not easy. It's not easy. And there's a reason why, you know, national security people are nerds like me and Brian and not movie stars, like, uh, like some of the domestic policy people.

Matt: Brian and Dany, thank you so much for this incredibly stimulating conversation. Before we close, I wonder if you might just tell us about any particularly exciting projects in which you're currently engaged, and also let us know how our listeners can learn more about your work.

Brian: Go ahead, Dany. You first.

Dany: Well, let me tell you, Brian has a fantastic podcast that I've been on that I really enjoy from the Middle East Institute. My former colleague Ken Pollack is now the number two guy at the Middle East Institute. I think that they are doing great work. I really enjoy, I really enjoy what they put out. And, you know what? Listening to people who you don't agree with makes you smarter. Uh, what do I do? Yeah, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. What the Hell Is Going On is my podcast. What the Hell Is Going On? is my Substack. And, uh, I'm very proud of all my colleagues at AEI as well. So there you go.

Brian: Yeah. So two things I mentioned. One, which was I'm getting out sort of on a regular basis. And if anyone's listening to this out there in middle America, invite me. I've really enjoyed sort of going out and talking to folks at different forums. And it's a different conversation. And, you know, I did it probably about two or three dozen times last year. So it was on the road quite a lot. But it was good. 

And then second, Dany mentioned this podcast. I hope you'll listen to it, Taking the Edge off the Middle East. What I'm trying to do more is humanize not just some of the people who are in the region, but also people who served in policy positions, who are often vilified in this sort of very divided time. I mentioned I had Elliott Abrams on one podcast and Rob Malley on the other. I pointed out to both of them, they happen to now have the same position on the two-state solution. They arrive at it at a different point. 

But if you listen to these, what I'm trying to do, people who are often hit from different angles and, you know, in very personal ways, is to help them lift up their voice in a way that even if you disagree with them, you understand that these are individuals, like all of us, who tried their best, maybe don't have the same values as each other or others, but that humanizing element I think is missing in so much of our politics. And I know it sounds soft, but I actually think it's going to become urgently more important to remind ourselves that we're all just sort of struggling with all the imperfections that we all have to get to the best answers here.

Matt: I think that's an extremely eloquent note to end on. This humanization agenda that motivates both of your work is one that we share on this podcast. Danielle Pletka, Brian Katulis, thank you so much for your generosity with your time. It's truly been a pleasure. And we'll look forward to continuing this conversation with you in one of our future episodes.

Dany: Thanks so much for having us.

Brian: Thank you.

Amy: You’re listening to the America's Why podcast. Our music is by James Fernando. For more information, and to join the conversation, please visit our website at americaswhyproject.com. See you next week!

[Music]